R v Oldeman - [2013] NZHC 1709

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2012-069-251 [2013] NZHC 1709

THE QUEEN

v

BARRY JOHN OLDEMAN

Charges: Permitting premises to be used for the manufacture of methamphetamine; Supplying Class A controlled drug

Plea: Counsel:

Guilty

PP Crayton for Crown
PG Mabey QC for Prisoner

Sentenced:

5 July 2013

SENTENCING NOTES OF BREWER J

Solicitors: Almao Douch (Hamilton) for Crown
Paul Mabey QC (Tauranga) for Prisoner

R v OLDEMAN [2013] NZHC 1709 [5 July 2013]

Introduction

[1] Mr Oldeman, you have pleaded guilty to a charge of supplying methamphetamine. This charge carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. You have also pleaded guilty to a charge of permitting premises to be used for the manufacture of methamphetamine. This charge carries a maximum penalty of
10 years’ imprisonment.

Facts

[2] In 2011 and 2012 you were living at a rural address near Taupo. In 2011 you permitted Mr David Harries to move into other premises on the property and to establish a methamphetamine manufacturing laboratory. Mr Harries then manufactured and sold substantial quantities of methamphetamine. He is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in excess of 14 years.

[3] When the Police executed a search warrant at your property they caught Mr Harries red-handed. I will not go into the detail of the scale of Mr Harries’ operation because I accept there is no evidence that you were aware of it. What I do infer is that you knew what he was doing and you received methamphetamine from him as a payment for allowing him to continue his operation. I also infer that you knew he was making more methamphetamine than was supplied to you. You knew that he was manufacturing methamphetamine on a commercial scale and you obtained methamphetamine for your own use and you profited from being able to sell methamphetamine. I also infer that had the Police not closed Mr Harries down, the arrangements between the two of you would have continued. I base this on the stockpiles of precursor material found in the laboratory.

[4] When the Police searched your residence they found seven grams of methamphetamine, ziplock bags and $7,900 in cash. The text messages on your cellphone indicated that you had supplied between 55 and 58 grams of methamphetamine from August 2011 to February 2012, mainly in packets of 0.25 to four grams, although on one occasion you supplied an ounce. There were a further
11 occasions where you supplied methamphetamine but in respect of which the quantities are unknown.

Personal circumstances

[5] You are 57 years old. You have been with your current partner for eight years. You admit that your offending has strained your family and, in particular, your relationship with your two adult daughters. You have worked in the farming industry for most of your life and have been self-employed on leased property running dry stock for 20 years. Prior to your offending, you describe yourself as being happy and financially secure.

[6] You say you are addicted to cannabis…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Oldeman

Details

AGLC: R v Oldeman [2013] NZHC 1709
Case: [2013] NZHC 1709
Decision Date: 5 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Oldeman involved Barry John Oldeman who pleaded guilty to two charges: permitting premises to be used for the manufacture of methamphetamine and supplying Class A controlled drugs. The High Court of New Zealand, Hamilton Registry, presided over the case, which included counsel for the Crown and the prisoner, and resulted in Oldeman's sentencing on 5 July 2013. The primary legal issues the court had to decide included determining the appropriate starting points for the charges and the appropriate uplift for the related charges. The court also had to consider mitigating factors and decide on the final sentence and any ancillary orders.

The court began by identifying the lead offence as the supply of methamphetamine, which fell within band two as per the case of R v Fatu. The court set a starting point of five years' imprisonment for this offence. For the charge of permitting premises to be used for manufacturing, the court considered various cases and agreed with the defence counsel that a starting point of up to three years was justified. After considering the totality of the offending, the court allowed an uplift of one year, resulting in a combined starting point of six years' imprisonment. The court also granted a substantial discount for Oldeman's pleas of guilty, reducing the starting point by 20%.

Ultimately, the court sentenced Oldeman to four years and ten months' imprisonment for supplying methamphetamine and a concurrent sentence of two years and four months' imprisonment for permitting premises to be used for the manufacture of methamphetamine. The court made an order for the forfeiture of $7,900 in cash found at Oldeman's home and discharged him on the manufacturing charge as the Crown indicated it would not offer any evidence against him on that count.

Orders